1927 Yankees team ball forgery

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

You're right on the money, David. There are some things that I won't talk about and there are other things that I can't talk about.

Sorry Chris for singling you out, and dragging you into his mess. It's been brought to my attention that the post wasn't necessarily intended for you. At least not solely.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by novakjr

Sorry Chris for singling you out, and dragging you into his mess. It's been brought to my attention that the post wasn't necessarily intended for you. At least not solely.

Well, the fact that Mr. Atkatz mentioned my name in his reply tells me that it was an intended shot at me.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Well, the fact that Mr. Atkatz mentioned my name in his reply tells me that it was an intended shot at me.

He might've mentioned you because I brought it up though. I'm just gonna bow out of this before it gets any worse.

[GrayGhost]

Enough of this please

[RichardSimon]

Not to worry David N.,I will take the advice given to me by others on this thread to ignore the baiting.
There have been so many negative posts directed at Atkatz recently that I don't have to say anything.
Scott - I will no longer post about him. It is done.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Not to worry David N.,I will take the advice given to me by others on this thread to ignore the baiting.
There have been so many negative posts directed at Atkatz recently that I don't have to say anything.
Scott - I will no longer post about him. It is done.

I am not baiting you, Richard. I'm letting it be known that I-and others--are extremely tired of your "I know, but I can't tell you" posts. If you can't offer enough information to be useful, than why post at all? And don't give us that "I'm afraid I'll be sued" BS. In 1997, three years before I purchased the '27 ball, Richard Galasso was not afraid to publicize "Johnny's" work in SCD, complete with photos. But you, who claim to have been aware of his work for twenty years, never contacted me with your doubts about the ball--photos of which I had posted here many times over the years. Nope. But then one day I pissed you off by commenting on your habit of withholding any and all actually useful information in your enigmatic "where's Johnny F*** today?" post, and then you tell me "well, you should know who I'm talking about--you have some of his work," in order to upset me the only way you can think of.

Now, I'm not saying you were obligated to have let me know of your suspicions, long before, but it sure would have been the decent thing to do.
So keep on pretending to take that high road.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

I am not baiting you, Richard. I'm letting it be known that I-and others--are extremely tired of your "I know, but I can't tell you" posts. If you can't offer enough information to be useful, than why post at all? And don't give us that "I'm afraid I'll be sued" BS. In 1997, three years before I purchased the '27 ball, Richard Galasso was not afraid to publicize "Johnny's" work in SCD, complete with photos. But you, who claim to have been aware of his work for twenty years, never contacted me with your doubts about the ball--photos of which I had posted here many times over the years. Nope. But then one day I pissed you off by commenting on your habit of withholding any and all actually useful information in your enigmatic "where's Johnny F*** today?" post, and then you tell me "well, you should know who I'm talking about--you have some of his work," in order to upset me the only way you can think of.

Now, I'm not saying you were obligated to have let me know of your suspicions, long before, but it sure would have been the decent thing to do.
So keep on pretending to take that high road.

David, explain to the board, how does Richard Galasso's advertisement place him in danger of being sued? He pictures and publicizes a baseball; he does not state who forged it. Did you think that Johnny was going to sue Galasso over that ad? I know you are not stupid, but are you really serious? I can see it now, Johnny saying: "Yeah, I forged that baseball and now I am going to sue." What legal system do you live in David?


And I want to remind the board of something; you’re the one who immediately stopped posting when the Frank Prisco thread was running. You can’t make your phony claim that you stopped posting because you had nothing else to add to the thread, because you always have something to say. Richard has been sued two times because of his courage to speak out. You have no right to question Richard when it comes to that subject of confronting the bad guys. You ran when confronted; you can deny it all you want, as I know you will, but we know what really happened.

Your ridiculous attempt to have Prisco answer your silly thread, when you had to know he would never answer you was laughable. "Hey Frank, this is David, I called you a crook, please help me now." Seriously?


As for your “1927 Yankees” team-signed baseball, I for one, had never seen the complete photos of your baseball on Net54. Then one day back in August 2011, I took a look at your avatar and something struck me as "weird." It was then I emailed you and asked you to send me photos of your ball. After examining your photos, I knew the sigs on your ball were not authentic. I remember sending you an email and writing “Nice ball.” That was during the time when we were cordial and I didn’t have the heart to break the news to you. Why should I be the messenger when it is always the messenger who gets blamed

[slidekellyslide]

How did the two suits go against Richard? I would think if you have evidence that they are forgers then they sure wouldn't want to take you to court..that opens them up to a whole lot of questions they probably wouldn't want. Nobody in here is afraid to accuse Coaches Corner of all kinds of illegalities. Is the proof against this Johnny F guy too flimsy?

[Mr. Zipper]

In this thread and in others, there have been some who have expressed sentiments along the lines of “This is why I would never collect autographs,” etc., etc.

I think it is important to keep this in perspective. While I feel terrible for David’s situation, one assumes much higher risk when going into the deep end of the pool. High dollar items attract master forgers and con men – the types of items that may even fool credible experts.

For the vast majority of “average” collectors (of which I include myself) who collect autographs of Mantle, Williams, Koufax, et.al., there is much less risk. Certainly forgeries of these figures exist, but they are not the master forgeries that can typically fool experts. By educating yourself, networking with experienced collectors, frequenting places like this and buying from good dealers, you can have an autograph collection that is relatively worry-free. Dare I say it lest I risk the scorn of the alphabet bashers , with your Mantles, DiMaggios, etc., PSA and JSA are reliable with these types of autographs the vast majority of the time and are a relatively safe way to build a collection.

[Caseyatbat]

This question is for David regarding your mint 1928 Babe Ruth signed baseball. Is it possible for that ball to be a "replica" Babe Ruth signed ball? I have seen a strikingly similar ball being offered several times over the past year or so as a replica. I have attached a couple pictures for you to look at. The first is your ball, and the second is a picture I found in my history of the replica. Please also note, this same replica was also offered in various forms considering pen color and ball condition.

[noserider]

Originally Posted by Caseyatbat

This question is for David regarding your mint 1928 Babe Ruth signed baseball. Is it possible for that ball to be a "replica" Babe Ruth signed ball? I have seen a strikingly similar ball being offered several times over the past year or so as a replica. I have attached a couple pictures for you to look at. The first is your ball, and the second is a picture I found in my history of the replica. Please also note, this same replica was also offered in various forms considering pen color and ball condition.

The plot thickens. Nice observation.

[Caseyatbat]

I don't think there is much question about whether they are the same or not. I believe they are absolutely the same. The big question is, is David's the original one? For this artist to make a replica of this ball; he either had to have possession of the original ball while doing so, or he would have to have very detailed close up images of the original in order to make a replica as detailed as that one is.

I did do a pretty thorough search through all of the major auction houses in the last 10 years to see if any of them had sold that particular Babe Ruth ball in the past and I was not able to find it. In order for the artist to get close up detailed images of the original Ruth ball he had to have gotten them from somewhere. There are not any on the internet of the original. If David has had possession of the original this whole time, where did this artist get such detailed pictures to make the replica? This ball looks like it would be a 50K+ Ball. It is usually not very difficult to find the Ruth's that sold for that much.

As much as it is going to kill many people on this forum for me to say, a simple PSA or JSA letter would be the end of this conversation. This is one of the exact reasons why I believe they are so important in this hobby. These replica's that are being made are actually pretty dam good. You really need to have the ball in person to know for sure. If you are just looking at pictures on the computer it can be very difficult to know the difference. The "indentation" of the pen really only shows up in person under magnification, or if somebody has extremely good vision they can tell the difference easily with the naked eye. But still needs to be done in person to know for sure.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Well, the fact that Mr. Atkatz mentioned my name in his reply tells me that it was an intended shot at me.

My original post about "knowledge" had nothing at all to do with you, Chris. Believe me, you never came to mind when I wrote it. After David mentioned you, I answered him, letting him know that. I apologize for the "flatter himself" bit, though. That was completely uncalled for on my part.